My newest form of psychological warfare… is to write an argument so tight, not one person, including the professor, wants to take it on. I’ve had this happen before. It’s annoying. So here you go, give me your thoughts, and don’t be afraid to learn something new or start a discussion!!
Issue 1: The United States should pass legislation which would require, not only that employers reveal how much they are paying people in the same position;
One argument for this is to ensure equality and make sure that people are getting paid enough. However; there is one big problem with this statement. And that is that the United States should pass legislation, which is ordained in reserved to Congress – Senate and House of Representatives – to make laws requiring employees reveal their salary. Since we are dealing mostly with PR, we are dealing with the private sector. It is only in the public sector, that the government can invade privacy like that because it’s a subdivision of it.
Not to mention, this is not in the constitution, even in broader terms. From ushistory.org, “The “elastic,” or implied powers, clause gives Congress the authority to pass laws it deems “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated functions. Many Congressional powers that have evolved over the years are based on this important clause.
The only two things it can do are the oversight of the budget and investigation. Congress may investigate both issues that warrant study and wrongdoings by public officials. Here is where the problem is, it is only in the public sector, could the government “investigate”, not pass a law requiring information. Only in the public sector can you do this, because the public sector is, “usually composed of organizations that are owned and operated by the government,” (www.privacysense.net, Public Sector). The private sector is locally owned businesses not related to the federal government. They have tried to make quotas for the private sector, but because of the Constitution and the people, they’ve been unsuccessful. Only through committee hearings, has Congress examined issues such as crime, consumer safety, health care, and foreign trade. If the Public sector has been breaking the law, only then may congress “investigate”. That’s as far as these elastic powers go, and there are gray areas there, based on human interpretation. Not to mention Congress must abide by protected individual rights, their committees have examined many allegations against elected officials.
Now that we have established the basics, the second bothersome part of the argument is, but also ensure that female and male employees filling similar positions should receive approximately the same base salary.
In 2014, female full-time workers made only 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 21 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio. (www.iwpr.org, Pay equality and discrimination). Even our book says, “At the present rate, women’s earnings won’t catch up to those of men until 2056. The wage gap is even greater for women of color — black women earn, on average, 68 cents for every dollar a white male makes, Hispanic women, 59 cents.”
There’s just one little problem. It’s all a lie.
Not to mention the website isn’t even credible if you’d take a second to look through it. They’re sources only pool from themselves! They cite themselves. How do I know people will see that? I typed in google men and women aren’t paid equally, and it was the third one down for me. Now that that’s out of the way, these “pay gaps” pool from everyone, including the unemployed! They don’t take into account that men 98 do dangerous jobs, the blue collar jobs. Should their “census” compare a female doctor to a male doctor, I can guarantee you, by personal experience, we have the same pay. From the heritage foundation,
The Census analysis appears lucid and straightforward. However, the Census data are marred by four problems that lead to an overstatement of the level of economic inequality. Differences in income are affected substantially by large differences in the amount of work performed in each quintile, yet these differences in work effort are not acknowledged in Census publications. They also skew information with statistics in four stages. Reporting convention census data, adding a complete count of income and taxes, adjusting quintiles to contain equal numbers of persons, and finally explains the remaining variance — hypothetical equalization of work performed. (www.heratige.org, overview of income distribution).
Issue 2: Marriage should be legally defined as between one man and one woman. However, some legal benefits of marriage (death benefits, etc.) can be legally granted outside of marriage.
“Marriage is a public social institution that exists prior to and then defines any couple who participates in it. Couples cannot privately define marriage to fit their particular circumstances.” (Georgetown University Press)
Business owners should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees and customers, but SOGI laws are bad public policy. Their threats to our freedoms unite civil libertarians concerned about free speech and religious liberty, free-market proponents concerned about freedom of contract and governmental overregulation, and social conservatives concerned about marriage and culture. (Anderson, Ryan T. SOGI LAWS)
Here is a summary of what he believes, “Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws pose serious problems for free markets and contracts, free speech and religious liberty, and the health of our culture and pluralism. SOGI laws do not protect equality before the law; instead, they grant special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.SOGI laws threaten Americans with liability for alleged “discrimination” based on subjective identities, not objective traits. Sexual orientation and gender identity are radically different from race and should not be elevated to a protected class in the way that race is.
The government should never penalize people for expressing or acting on their view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that sexual relations are properly reserved for such a union, or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities. The government should have nothing to do with this. This is about religious liberty, right? Why isn’t it fair to say no to them? Why do suddenly, we have campaigns and close to slanderous remarks for those who have been “denied”? There wasn’t one for Jesus.
So, what does our Constitution say? It says, via the Tenth Amendment, that the States and the People of those states should decide what they want to do about gay marriage without any interference from the federal government. (Diaz, 2015)
Since the constitution neither forbids nor allows gay marriage we rely on ourselves. If we were to make a law forbidding the thoughts and morals of people and shoved them into one singular, all encompassing law, the end would have surely begun. All nations ruled under a single leader, and that leader sucks dry any independent thoughts of the people, then we surely are under an antichrist.
I personally do not believe in gay marriage and that is completely within my rights to say that, thanks to the soldier who fights for it. Other people are entitled to their beliefs. I’d turn into a liberal if I said we should make everyone’s views the same as theirs, and try to make laws that line up with their opinion. This LGBT rights movement is not based in law at all, just bias persons ready to destroy everything that America stands for. How many times have the Christians been denied, persecuted, and hated for their faith? They’re personal faith. Where is the “equality” there?
CQ Press. (2013). Women and work. In Issues for debate in American public policy: selections from cQ Researcher [Kindle For Mac] (pp. 4724-4726).
Daley, P. (2013, May 20). The church has lost control of marriage. Retrieved from http://ncronline.org/blogs/parish-diary/church-has-lost-control-marriage
Diaz, H. C. (n.d.). Gay Marriage, What Does Our Constitution Say? : Speak Up America. Retrieved from http://www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html
The difference between the private and public sector. (2015, August). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://www.privacysense.net/difference-between-private-public-sector/
Georgtown University Press. (2012). Same-Sex Marriage: Social Facts and Conflicting Views. JStor, 67. Retrieved from http://0-www.jstor.org.library.regent.edu/stable/j.ctt2tt3n5.6?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Same&searchText=sex&searchText=marriage&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSame%2Bsex%2Bmarriage%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents
Hederman, R. S., & Rector, R. (1999, September 29). Income inequality: how census data misrepresent income distribution. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/09/income-inequality?ac=1
Michon, K. (2013, June 26). Federal Marriage Benefits Available to Same-Sex Couples | Nolo.com. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html
Pay Equity & Discrimination — IWPR. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination
Ushistory.org. (2011). The Powers of Congress [ushistory.org]. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp